Mitigating - Aggravating Factors- General Information the penalty phase

[justsaying]

Regarding the mental illness defense, I always thought that this had to be declared early in the process. You know, the old not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect with all the following examinations and reports by mental health professionals on both sides. I didn't think you could spring this defense on anyone late in the trial or at sentencing. Any legal eagles help me out on this process?

 

[whiteangora]

Hello, I am new here, but have been following this case from the beginning...I have an issue with what AL is going to, or has proposed regarding the death penalty and how research shows something about how women are more likely to be put to death? I hope I am misinformed because that imo, is the complete opposite, I would think women are less likely to be put to death:waitasec:....does anyone else have thoughts on this?

Hi pamandabear and Welcome!
There are far less women sitting on death row in this country as opposed to men, so I'm not sure about the research.
Perhaps it is speaking about parents that kill their children? There still seems to be more men sentenced to death for that crime than women, imo. Good old AL will pull out all of her tricks, and try to rewrite the Florida laws in the process.

 

[AZlawyer]

Regarding the mental illness defense, I always thought that this had to be declared early in the process. You know, the old not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect with all the following examinations and reports by mental health professionals on both sides. I didn't think you could spring this defense on anyone late in the trial or at sentencing. Any legal eagles help me out on this process?

I haven't read any of this thread but happened to pop in and see this one. I don't think there is any chance that they are planning on a "not guilty by reason of insanity" type of defense. She is clearly not crazy enough for that. The mental illness evidence would be brought in during the penalty phase, if she is found guilty, to support the argument that, although she killed Caylee, she should not get the death penalty. The penalty phase is where you try to make the jury feel sorry for the murderer because of his/her terrible childhood, mental illness, disappointments in life, etc.

 

[logicalgirl]

Thanks AZLawyer, not can you clarify for me because we are getting somewhat mixed up - and I have been talking about the penalty phases only.

There seem to be some really firm guidelines regarding what can be said - such as either lawyer discussing their personal views re the death penalty, such as you are trying to kill my client, since the death penalty is legal in Florida, and some real restraints on hystronics.

But are the factors presented in the penalty phase the defense presents as you so sweetly put it to get the jury to feel sorry for the defendant, are these factors called non-mitigating factors?

Yes, I know I should ask that over in the legal thread, but if you are still lingering....

 

[justsaying]

I haven't read any of this thread but happened to pop in and see this one. I don't think there is any chance that they are planning on a "not guilty by reason of insanity" type of defense. She is clearly not crazy enough for that. The mental illness evidence would be brought in during the penalty phase, if she is found guilty, to support the argument that, although she killed Caylee, she should not get the death penalty. The penalty phase is where you try to make the jury feel sorry for the murderer because of his/her terrible childhood, mental illness, disappointments in life, etc.

Thanks AZlawyer. So, the defense attorneys can say that you are just mentally ill enough that you deserve to live? I sure wish them luck with that one.

 

[MD MOMMY]

Do you think they will be able to do that without medical documentation? From what I understand the only time ICA experienced a "seizure" and went to the emergency dept of a nearby hospital, she got a NYD without a confirmation she actually had a seizure.

I wonder if she is actually on anti-seizure meds in prison? If she is actually having seizures, she will be on meds and it will be documented.

Legally, I honestly have no idea. I do think they can certainly question JG about what happened. I get a weird feeling because KC brought it up in her letters with RA, it seemed intentional to me.

 

[Leila]

I see I have a long list of prior posts and no one else is in the thread, so I'm obviously boring you all to tears, so I only have one more thing, and it's a question to all you Mothers and Daughters out there. Seriously I'd like to hear your thoughts on this - it's kind of a chicken or the egg kind of a question.

Given what we know about Casey's outrageous behavior re lying, stealing from her family members and friends:

Which do you think came first? Cindy's controlling behavior or Casey's outrageous behavior and attitudes, lack of responsibility towards her own life and that of her child?

Are you sure?

Logicalgirl...............you're certainly not boring me. Which came first? I think it was a combination of both.........Cindy's tyranny and Casey's non-conforming behavior. As Casey's balked under Cindy's tyranny and her behavior didn't conform to Cindy's expectations, Cindy escalated her tyranny and Casey, in turn, escalated her non-conformist behavior. It was an ongoing and ever escalating battle.

But, considering the above, many people who grew up with a tyrannical parent, didn't become an adult and murder their own child. In most cases where there's a tyrannical parent, be it mother or father, the child usually becomes a responsible person, eager to get a job and become independent so they can move out from being under the tyrannical parent's thumb.

I believe that Casey was born with a personality disorder that was only made worse by Cindy's controlling behavior.

 

[Paintr]

I think the defense will be introducing and reinforcing mitigating factors all through the trial, long before the penalty phase.

KC appeareance will be geared to generate sympathy in the jury. She will be thin and waif like, primly dressed and properly behaved, making it hard for the jury to 'see' a woman capable of killing anything, much less her own child.KC will be coached to produce tears and woeful looks at appropriate moments during testimony.

In cross examination, the defense will manage to imply that LE was picking on poor defenseless KC and that she was afraid of them. Too afraid to talk.

The defense will also manage to introduce references to KC's questionable home life, especially with CA and with the alleged abuse. Without calling one mental health expert, they will portray KC as a victim.

None of this will be called mitigation but it will gradually be conditioning the jury to be sympathetic to KC and will hopefully spare her a guilty verdict. If the guilty verdict is given, then they have already laid the groundwork for no DP from this jury.

Mitigation doesn't begin in the penalty phase. It has already begun. J Baez has already stated on national tv...the state is trying to kill my client.

 

[Leila]

bbm

If that's what they're planning on doing then I wish they would just do it and stop wasting everybody's time and money.
I know there are quite a few people who have insisted this trial will never take place and their conclusions were drawn in 2008.
But now, the big question is if the State would even consider a plea at this point in time?

The state offered a plea deal in August 2008 with a limited period of time. When the state made that offer, one of the local reporters asked JB about it and he basically blew it off with those tired words, "my client is innocent." The deadline for that plea deal came and went without JB acknowledging it.

At this point, with Caylee's remains found, and the duct tape, I doubt the state would consider a plea.

 

[autumnlover]

I expect the alleged sexual molestation by George and Lee to be a mitigating factor, along with the notion that Cindy not only denied it, she didn't protect her. Of course, the SA could ask what proof there is of that other than the allegation of a pathological liar.

 

[Leila]

Florida Statute: 921.141
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0921/Sec141.HTM

Relevant Aggravating Circumstances:
(d) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any: robbery; sexual battery; aggravated child abuse; abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult resulting in great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; arson; burglary; kidnapping; aircraft piracy; or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.

(h) The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.

(i) The capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.

(l) The victim of the capital felony was a person less than 12 years of age.

(m) The victim of the capital felony was particularly vulnerable due to advanced age or disability, or because the defendant stood in a position of familial or custodial authority over the victim.



Relevant Mitigating Circumstances:
(b) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
(e) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.
(f) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.

(g) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.

(h) The existence of any other factors in the defendant's background that would mitigate against imposition of the death penalty.

I think these two will be ones that the defense will try to build their mitigation case on.

 

[Leila]

Hello, I am new here, but have been following this case from the beginning...I have an issue with what AL has proposed regarding the death penalty and how research shows something about women are more likely to be put to death? I hope I am misinformed because that imo, is the complete opposite, I would think women are less likely to be put to death:waitasec:....does anyone else have thoughts on this?

Pamandabear....................

 

[Intermezzo]

I am mom to 14 ages 25-1...and yes the more exasperating they are, the more irresponsible they are the more I fret and fume...but I doubt you or I have ever reached CA level of control...from the hands on LA's shoulder...to the squeeze of GA's knee....

I realize I am being awful hard on CA, and I will admit that woman drives me battywonkers!!!!!

But honestly...I think CA's control came first...with a why bother to try response from ICA...though...I also believe ICA had a choice.

14!! God bless you and your family Mamabear....and Happy Mother's Day

 

[Aedrys]

Logicalgirl...............you're certainly not boring me. Which came first? I think it was a combination of both.........Cindy's tyranny and Casey's non-conforming behavior. As Casey's balked under Cindy's tyranny and her behavior didn't conform to Cindy's expectations, Cindy escalated her tyranny and Casey, in turn, escalated her non-conformist behavior. It was an ongoing and ever escalating battle.

But, considering the above, many people who grew up with a tyrannical parent, didn't become an adult and murder their own child. In most cases where there's a tyrannical parent, be it mother or father, the child usually becomes a responsible person, eager to get a job and become independent so they can move out from being under the tyrannical parent's thumb.

I believe that Casey was born with a personality disorder that was only made worse by Cindy's controlling behavior.

ITA with this. It kind of sounds like me and my mom. The more she wanted to me to be perfect, popular daughter she always wanted, the more I did things and acted in ways that wasn't what she wanted. I knew I'd never be the daughter she wanted and wanted her to love me for me. I wonder if this played into their relationship. Cindy never thought Casey was good enough, and Casey just wanted her mom to love her for who and what she was.

It really makes me wonder had Cindy stopped trying to make Casey something she would never be, would Casey have felt the need to do and say things so harsh against what her mother wanted. It was almost like, "See mom? See who I really am? See who I will never be for you?" And Cindy not only refused to get it, but moved onto a new child she could make the perfect daughter out of. How much more awful can a mother get to her own child to replace her when she won't be what her mother wants her to be? I can definitely see where Casey's rage came from.

Thankfully for me and my mom, after years of clashing with each other, she's finally let me live my life and tried not to mold me into something I'm not. We're both living happy lives, and get along pretty well now. I don't think that would have ever happened with Cindy and Casey - it seems like Casey was either what Cindy wanted her to be or she wasn't and Cindy didn't love her. That is so harsh to lay that on your child. Love shouldn't come with conditions. And it's ironic that Cindy claims to love Casey unconditionally as the reason she supports Casey even though Casey did something so horrible. We all know that's a bold face lie, and I think Casey knows that too.

That would be the only way I could possibly feel a bit of sympathy for Casey. It doesn't by a long shot excuse her for what she did nor, to me, earn her a lesser sentence, but I can see how such a domineering, controlling, "I love you, but" kind of mother could make Casey the way she is.

Of course, Casey did have a choice - to not let her mother define who she is and live her own life despite what her mother wanted. Instead, she chose to kill Caylee to hurt her mother. This is what I'm hoping the prosecution brings up no matter what the defense says. You can have the crappiest childhood ever, but that doesn't mean it's okay to kill people because of it.

 

[logicalgirl]

I think the defense will be introducing and reinforcing mitigating factors all through the trial, long before the penalty phase.

KC appeareance will be geared to generate sympathy in the jury. She will be thin and waif like, primly dressed and properly behaved, making it hard for the jury to 'see' a woman capable of killing anything, much less her own child.KC will be coached to produce tears and woeful looks at appropriate moments during testimony.

In cross examination, the defense will manage to imply that LE was picking on poor defenseless KC and that she was afraid of them. Too afraid to talk.

The defense will also manage to introduce references to KC's questionable home life, especially with CA and with the alleged abuse. Without calling one mental health expert, they will portray KC as a victim.

None of this will be called mitigation but it will gradually be conditioning the jury to be sympathetic to KC and will hopefully spare her a guilty verdict. If the guilty verdict is given, then they have already laid the groundwork for no DP from this jury.

Mitigation doesn't begin in the penalty phase. It has already begun. J Baez has already stated on national tv...the state is trying to kill my client.

thank you Paintr - I appreciate your thoughts on my question. And I might add they had better get on with that kind of kill language in the trial because they sure as heck can't say that or anything like that during the penalty phase!

 

[Intermezzo]

Hello, I am new here, but have been following this case from the beginning...I have an issue with what AL has proposed regarding the death penalty and how research shows something about women are more likely to be put to death? I hope I am misinformed because that imo, is the complete opposite, I would think women are less likely to be put to death:waitasec:....does anyone else have thoughts on this?

:Welcome-12-june:

 

[logicalgirl]

I think these two will be ones that the defense will try to build their mitigation case on.

Honestly - I really don't think (e) will fly.

Do you remember the woman who was so abused by her husband in New York - so much so she was unrecognizable? She and her husband caused the death of her six year old daughter? She was so under control of her husband that when he told her not to call for help for her daughter who was obviously dying, she didn't and couldn't because she was so abused she couldn't make a decision for herself.

And there was no threat to Casey's life under the so-called controlling domination by Cindy - at all. On one of the threads there is a whole paper about what mitigating factors with actual court cases - this just wouldn't apply. They are talking about mental retardation, etc. not a mother like Cindy.

I hope the prosecution at some point plays those jail house tapes where Casey is *****ing at her parents and they are definitely cowed by her and her words, and her temper tantrum. No way was Cindy running the show in that house!

Oops mods, for the word that was **** ed out!

 

[Intermezzo]

I expect the alleged sexual molestation by George and Lee to be a mitigating factor, along with the notion that Cindy not only denied it, she didn't protect her. Of course, the SA could ask what proof there is of that other than the allegation of a pathological liar.

BBM
I am wondering, IF they do introduce the alleged sexual molestation as a mitigating factor would or could that trigger a criminal investigation involving George and Lee?

Would the defense have to have some sort of proof? :waitasec:

What could be the future ramifications for Lee and George IF the alleged sexual molestation was introduced in court?

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM
I am wondering, IF they do introduce the alleged sexual molestation as a mitigating factor would or could that trigger a criminal investigation involving George and Lee?

Would the defense have to have some sort of proof? :waitasec:

What could be the future ramifications for Lee and George IF the alleged sexual molestation was introduced in court?

I sincerely hope if the SA thinks it will be brought up during the penalty phase, (which does not need proof, but just needs this sort of thing alluded to) will introduce it during the trial phase and get both George and Lee up on the stand and ask them about it first. I just don't think Casey's descriptions of what happened when she was 12, while she was asleep or so she thinks, is enough to make this a serious charge. And looking at her body type - was she even wearing a bra at 12?

 

[Intermezzo]

I sincerely hope if the SA thinks it will be brought up during the penalty phase, (which does not need proof, but just needs this sort of thing alluded to) will introduce it during the trial phase and get both George and Lee up on the stand and ask them about it first. I just don't think Casey's descriptions of what happened when she was 12, while she was asleep or so she thinks, is enough to make this a serious charge. And looking at her body type - was she even wearing a bra at 12?

BBM
IF that did occur it would be very interesting to hear what their response would be on the stand.
If Casey's allegation was a lie, one or both could "throw themselves under the bus" in order to save Casey from the DP.
I agree that it will be introduced during the penalty phase though and not during the trial...